It is also important to note the social costs of high CO2 emissions in the form health problems and the cost that inflicts upon society. It results in of low productivity of those facing the health problem (eg. asthma, heart diseases due to air pollution). Also it impacts the productivity and well-being of the care-takers, apart from the fact that savings get spent in meeting medical expenses rather than being channelised to productive investments. This is especially true of developing countries where social security systems are not in place and environmental regulations are weak and ineffective. The developed countries should take lead in innovating technologies that can help in reducing CO2 and then these technologies should be shared with the developing nations.

CO2 reduction via taxation looks very promising to US lefty (neo)Keynesian economists.
It all fits in:
-carbon taxes will cripple the oil and gas industry in the much hated fly-over states.
-money flows directly or indirectly to the green companies', many of those are befriended with the liberals. But of course the green companies can't really compete with the traditional energy industry, hence they need the money.
- Keynesian politics means increasing the aggregate demand (to get the economy steaming); it doesn't matter how to them . It could be paying one guy to dig a hole, and paying another to fill the hole again. But they wouldn't be able to sell this concept polically, as it seems, and is absurd.
But again with CO2-taxes, subsidies, redistribution of wealth (not meaning more equal distribution, but rather other people get to be filthy rich; you know how it goes in socialism) paradise is glooming for the left..

Climate science makes Keynesianism look like physics. In order to make such extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary, wealth-sapping resources, a formulaic link between carbon concentration and a warming trend needs to be established. In other words, the claims need to be subject to scientific falsification. The so-called "ensemble" of climate models have failed to establish such a formulaic linkage, just as econometric models routinely fail to predict changes in the business cycle.

I wonder if Stiglitz has ever talked to specialist on environmental issues Bjorn Lomborg, also writing for Project Syndicate. Maybe he should before saying leftwing populist things like "Climate change poses an existential threat to the planet that is no less dire than that posed by North Korea’s nuclear ambitions"
Go talk to him Joseph !

Mr. Stiglitz outdoes himself.
"Trump’s claim is difficult to justify. On the contrary, the Paris accord is very good for America, and it is the US that continues to impose an unfair burden on others. " If the US ceased ALL carbon dioxide emissions tomorrow it would have no measurable effect on global temperatures. The modeling conjures up perhaps 0.02 degC of warming avoided. It wouldn't even be measureable and a horrible sacrifice of 20% of global GDP.
The tragedy of the 97& consensus on climate and all the climate correctness among the UN, environmental groups, politicians, and the global multi-billionaires is that the Paris agreement will do absolutely nothing for the less developed countries and nothing for the poor of all stripes. All the effects of trying to solve a non-problem would merely aggravate global problems.

Read some of Bjørn Lomborg's columns here. The best approach to such a wicked problem of possible climate change is to empower people to become more independent and adaptable, not destroy the world's economy.
Another Stiglitz blooper- " coal-mining jobs (which now number 51,000, less than 0.04% of the country’s nonfarm employment". He neglects to mention the coal miners lost jobs paying $40-50,000. Solar power jobs in the US amounted to ~200,000, paying $12-15 and hour-<$30,000 a year with few fringe benefits and largely day labor construction jobs installing solar panels. Almost all the manufacturing jobs, and attendant pollution have been ousourced to China and some other low way countris/

Is anyone exempt from an obligation to protect the planet from anthropogenic climate disruption and allowed to pollute with zero accountability at this time of increasing global political and socioeconomic upheaval, extreme inequality among people, countries and continents, and evident global warming?

The prevailing view among people I trust is that Climate Change (a truism because that is what climate always does) is beginning to look like a Power Swindle.
This June, ther was snow in Moscow. No westen media reported the rare event.
First we had God as the source of sacred Power, then we had the Pope, then God chose to delegate his immense power in Kings. Kinks that a few centuries later we chose to decapitate......and we had to invent the Nation so that we could be forced to die for the new deity and to pay her endless taxes.
Now, with Globalization it was deemed necessary to bring about the death of the Nation State. Certainly this is the case in Europe.
The new deity, Mother Earth, comes forward surrounded by a bunch of well fed Priests to proclaim the Gospel. Stiglitz looks like a perfect choice.
Man is a religious animal and somebody is taking advantage of the fact.

#manu Oquendo.
"Man is a religious animal and somebody is taking advantage of the fact"

"Religion is created by humans rather than by gods, and it is defined by its social function rather than by the existence of deities. Religion is any all- encompassing story that confers superhuman legitimacy on human laws, norms and values.
It legitimizes social structures by arguing that they reflect superhuman laws
Religion asserts that we humans are subject to a system of moral laws that we did not invent and we cannot change."
Homo Deus.
Yuval Noah Harari.

What if American import is taxed heavily by the rest of the world as a result of the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. The world output is sufficient to sustain the needs of the people without America, but is the US output sufficient to sustain the demand of the American citizens without the World?

What taxes on good things (income?) does Stiglitz suggest rolling back after the imposition of a carbon tax? Left unsaid, one can argue that "global warming" and/or "climate change" are being used as a stalking horse for a particular view on the role of the state. Why is a carbon tax preferable to tax credits for a reduction in carbon emissions? Some of us prefer incentives over punishment.

As others point out, this article is too complex for non-believers so won't sway public opinion. For believers, it is an excellent source of information, in particular the report on Carbon Pricing.
The place of the US in the new world order 2.0 is in large part being determined by the actions of Trump and his denialist hordes, and the reaction of the rest of the world to those actions.
US - the second Hermit Kingdom.

Mr. Stiglitz assumes that CO2 is a pollutant in the same category as Lead or other nasty pollutants. This is wrong.
AGW proponents overestimate humankind's influence on climate while ignoring the history of climate change. Looking at the pattern of climate change over the last 2.5 million years and the glaciation cycles clearly shows that our current interglacial or warming period is about to end at any time. Trying to understand the factors that trigger these changes, including Earth's orbital cycles, sunspot cycles, geologic influences such as volcanism, bolide impacts, and other influences on climate, is a science in infancy. Our Earth hurtles through space and impacts with objects similar to bugs smacking the car windshield or worse.
We have allowed incidences like Flint's Lead crisis to increase, ignored the history of climate change, and wasted time and money on the AGW hypothesis whose predictions have been as accurate as a bone throwing shaman.
Mr. Trump pulled the United States away from this foolishness and his EPA under Mr. Pruitt will prudently apply Red team/Blue team analysis to research the AGW hypothesis and other areas of concerns. Our nation's energy policy will become more practicle as a result.

I am amazed that people are so willing, for some reason (usually the faulty claim that AGW theorists seek to impose a new world order, or some such knuckleheadedness), to ignore the findings of science in the case of climate change, and yet are so willing to accept it in other contexts. If one is so chary about atmospheric physics and all other sciences related to understanding the climate, I must assume that they are also skeptical about other areas of sciences. As such, I assume they avoid the recommendations of their doctors (because, after all, such recommendations may be science--based! yikes!), avoid bridges, automobiles, airplanes, and anything designed by engineers (too sciency!), eat food and drink water only if it has not passed inspection, because, egad, the inspections are based on--yes--science! And so on--you get the point. The arguments against the idea of AGW are almost always some outdated version of "the greenies want to stop economic growth," when in fact forward-thinking entrepreneurs and leading economies are waking up to the potential of earth-friendly, clean energy technologies. Far from AGW theorists behaving as a cult, as is often the charge, there is a lot of scientific evidence in their favor. But isn't the acceptance of science in some cases and denying it in others--to suit one's political beliefs--more cultish?

'In fact, the major flaw in Trump’s reasoning ... '
- is its utter absence. There is precisely no point in articles like this. The True Believers will simply see them as confirmation of their beliefs, and the 'rest of us' aren't fooled by him in the first place.

My bet is that Trump will not be removed, if only because to trigger Article 25 of the Constitution, the Vice President would have to take action he has no intention at all of taking. AS to 'impeachment', the government (at least two of the three branches) are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP's financiers. So no threat from there. A few seats in the house may be thrown to the wolves, or sacrificed as minor pawns.

No, we'll just have to wait this one out. If the gods are really out for fun, we have another seven and a half years to go; otherwise, three and a half. Absent stroke or heart attack, for instance. By which time the US will have about as much credibility as Transylvania under Dracula. And not much more influence.

Absent nothing short of a true revolution, in attitude and belief if nothing else, the curtain is ringing down on the 'American Experiment' in global leadership. Thins will revert to the pre-1914 US situation. Next in line, please!

Climate orthodoxy is a pillar of current leftist thinking along with political correctness, identity politics, victim-hood and the cultism of diversity. Any deviation from the absolute believe that Man is the only cause of warming and variations in Earth’s climate meet with name “denier”. There is an inconvenient scientific fact that the left refuses to entertain - CO2 does not drive climate. It is a by-product of warming and always has been. And current CO2 levels do not come close to levels in past millennia. The drivers of climate are “Eccentricity”, variations in the elliptical orbit of the Sun that occurs approximately every 90,000 – 100,000 years; “Tilt” - the variations in the 22% angle of the axis that the Earth rotates on as it orbits the Sun which occurs approximately every 41,000 years; “Precession” (of the Equinoxes), - the slight variations in the “wobble” of the Earth on its axis occurring approximately every 23,000 years; the 11-year stronger/weaker cycles of the Sun’s energy and, finally, the movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates which are continuous and such movement happens very slowly. The left despises any challenge to leftist climate orthodoxy and they are especially vile when you challenge their ideas on climate. Climate is the only real religion of the true leftist. And sadly, history has shown time and time again that the left tolerates NO DEBATE.

And most important to understand about the Paris Climate Accord, is that it is a fully voluntary agreement and any commitment by any country can be changed in any way at any time. It has no enforcement mechanism and, if fully employed as originally agreed, has no discernible impact on Earth’s temperature. So by exiting the Paris Climate Accord, President Trump did what was in the United States geopolitical interests - not waste time, capital and energy on a meaningless agreement that has no impact on this Earth.

I'm fully agree with you. CO2 is havier than air and CANN'T drive the climate up! The main problem we have are the many mistakes which were made drilling for oil and gas! All the claims for climate-change go to the oil- and LNG exploitation companies!

"The Accord was doomed before negotiators ever assembled for photographs in December 2015. They were not there to commit each country to meaningful greenhouse-gas reductions; rather, everyone submitted their voluntary pledges in advance, and all were accepted without scrutiny. Pledges did not have to mention emissions levels, nor were there penalties for falling short. The conference itself was, in essence, a stapling exercise." Oren Cass

perhaps some of that populism would go away if the western world focused more on the economic well being of it's citizens, rather than a quixotic quest to ban the plant food from the atmosphere. Development of new energy sources for the world makes a lot of sense, but imposing energy taxes to help the middle class, not so much. The populist wave has been temporarily stopped in uk and french elections, but it is sure to come back unless governments and assorted hangers on sober up.

J.Stiglizt doesn^t seem to realize that good and bad are entirely subjective notions. For example, for Trump the greatest good might be to get reelected, and anything likely to put off his electorate in the short term, e.g. 4 years, even if it might put on his electorate in the longer term will be considered as bad. There are no such things as objectively good or bad things, only within a frame of subjective values can things objectively be assessed as acting in favor or disfavor of the support of the said values.

Mar-a-Lago -- Trump's home in Palm Beach, FL -- is less than 2 meters above sea level. By the end of the century, it will probably be under water, according to projections by NOAA. The Florida real estate market already is girding itself for a drop in prices due to sea-level rise. Depending upon when the epiphany occurs in the marketplace, Mar-a-Lago will probably be financially under water soon after. When will the Donald sell? What sucker will buy the property - or give him a tax write-off to donate it for public use as a national treasure?

.."Poor countries like china" and I stopped reading it after that.
I do strongly recommend for Mr Stiglitz to go and visit china.The last time I was there in march the air was so bad you couldn't see the other buildings from your hotel room

It doesn't matter much for global warming where the pollution occurs. Much of what is produced in China is for export. It is a question whether the producing country or the consuming country is ultimately responsible for the pollution.

Trump is concerned about people, for example coal miners, who work in an industry that has been hammered by politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists. And the coal mining industry is key, around the world, for things needing energy. America has moved, and will continue to move, into the “green economy”, whether in or out of the Paris accord. The farther from politics, the better the technology, economics and rational thinking.

Stiglitz assumes that Paris’s fear of CO2 is a good thing, a basis for levying a good tax. The “far higher” carbon cost levy that Stiglitz wishes to impose would “still [be] manageable”. One would like to know what “manageable” is for a country, like America, that struggles under a huge unsustainable burden of debt, for the effects of the high tax would be in effect permanent. He cites Sweden as a model. Sweden’s major source of power is nuclear, and has no coal-fired power stations. Its high carbon tax is placed on four thermal non-nuclear (natural gas and fuel oil) stations providing 10-15% of Sweden’s total megawatts. Hydro produces about the same, and there is a spattering of the same ugly wind farms that pimple many countries, including America.

Independence is America’s strength, and America has long been a leader and long been derided from within (a la the American Stiglitz) and without. Nothing new here. As Stiglitz notes, American states take their own decisions in many areas, one emblem of American independence and its strength. And this independence is crucial to learn whether global warming/climate change is normal or not, and whether the panic that is being urgently pressed onto the world is justified panic or unjustified panic. If global warming/climate change is indeed shown to be a threat, America and other countries will be able to adapt. After all, a great strength of humans, we must remember, is that we can adapt, if politics and global panic don’t get in the way.

What is this beef about about windfarms?
It's pure brainwashing.
Most places you can't see the windmills for the pylons in between.
And the pylons are all joined together by miles of drooping horizontals.
Let's get real.

The answer to dealing with countries who drag their feet is to levy a sanctions style tax on any exports they make. This will only work with those who holdout, not to get the ball rolling, for that a large consensus including America is needed. Since the majority of Americans would support that it is just a matter of getting corporate polluters to stop donating to the political parties, in particular, the GOP.

In Canada we are still paying for the temporary income tax enacted in 1917 to pay for WWI.

All the "good"taxes that are contemplated need to be offset by a reduction in the "bad" taxes currently paid by the citizens; and a results based analysis of where those taxes are spent and the return to the people who have paid the taxes; not to be evaluated by "experts" who have a vested interest in the specific industries.
{ World Bank; IPCC; Ademe; :MINISTÈRE DE LA TRANSITION
ÉCOLOGIQUE ET SOLIDAIRE}

I would ask the Nobel prize winning economist to provide a study of the "benefits" that the citizens in the Province of Ontario have enjoyed with numerous "good" taxes imposed by the progressive Liberal governments of the last 15 years who seem to have followed policies that you have advocated and continue to advocate.

And I hope the same for a lot of other countries aswell, but the electoral systems in many make it difficult.

It is very unsatisfactory that when election results are declared both side claim victory because one would like to have counted differently. Voters ought to be able to have confidence in the electoral system producing the right result even when they have lost.

Since the government of Canada is not publicly burning bank notes I can only assume they spent the funds on something, which means whether you agree with the expenditure or not it mostly went back into the Canadian economy and you benefited indirectly in some way.

Aggregate demand will increase when the people who want stuff have the means to pay for it. Is that some sort of difficult concept for economists to grasp? Where do you all live? In hermetically sealed gated communities without access to TV?

I'm inclined to agree with alot of this, but I have to say 'so what's new?'

The sainted Barak Obama scuppered the Copenhagen agreement. Neither of these guys runs the country. They do what they can and if they get to set the tone they are doing well. If they get out of line they go down in the annals with Lincoln and Kennedy. It's a big ask.

If the only thing that Donald Trump achieves is to get Americans to doubt their media coverage and consider the parlous state of democracy he'll have done a lot more than most.

Trump, with all his faults and they are many, showed the American public that the voter is still a powerful force, and that you are not limited in choice to two cooperative grey suits pushed forward by corporate America. Hopefully next election they can pick someone who can make a constructive contribution.

'Under President Donald Trump’s leadership ... '
Pardon? Did I miss something? The only direction Donaldo el Magnifico de Mar a Lago has led anyone, is up (or down) the garden path to the Great Dismal Swamp.

Don't even bother. He isn't even listening. Nor interested in anything but the sound of his own voice.

AS an economist, I'm sure you're familiar with the acronymm 'GDP'. REading it in the context of US economic performance, a voice in my ear unpacked it 'Gross Demented Parrot.' Squawker and twitterer in chief.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.